Zack Cooper

1.2K posts

Zack Cooper banner
Zack Cooper

Zack Cooper

@ZackCooper

Tweets on Asian security. Senior Fellow @AEI. Lecturer @PrincetonSPIA. Board Chair @OpenTech. Wrangler of children. Former Pentagon and White House staffer.

Katılım Haziran 2008
1.2K Takip Edilen20.2K Takipçiler
Zack Cooper
Zack Cooper@ZackCooper·
@johnkonrad @WarOnTheRocks Great! Would look forward to getting your insights into the Trump team’s thinking. And appreciate your points about the industrial base, logistics, and chokepoint issues — will be good to get into more detail on those. I’ll DM so that we can figure out the arrangements.
English
1
0
3
94
John Ʌ Konrad V
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad·
Setting aside the disaster that was the 2017 transition appointments… I was a fan of the show until recently, when you all (but you especially) began routinely narrating the inner monologue of the President and key members of the administration. I tune in for the criticism. Criticism is useful. But the show has become something else: judgmental. And the distinction matters. Dr. Marshall Rosenberg’s work on conflict prevention identifies a precise mechanism here. Judging intent is the cornerstone of anger. Anger is the cornerstone of conflict. Phrases like “I don’t think that’s what the President is thinking, he’s thinking X” don’t inform. They foment. And it is anger, not disagreement, that breaks down civil society. Drop the presumptions of intent and I have no problem with your dissent. Simplifying intent is dangerous too because it’s also assumptive. We all know Trump has an ego. He admits it. Saying that was part of his decision making process is fine but suggesting it overrides all logic is false, This works both ways. I am angry with @EvansRyan202 because I assume his intention in publishing @CynicalPublius’ middle name was to make it easier for people to harass his coworkers. But I recognize my assumption could be wrong, so my anger towards Ryan is slight. Others who have convinced themselves of hostile intent are fuming. It would evaporate entirely if Ryan clarified his intent by admitting it was his motivation or proving otherwise. If true the residual emotion might be resentment, but resentment doesn’t start wars. It starts arguments. There’s a difference. Your assumption of intent on air is my primary grievance. My long-standing dispute with @EvansRyan202 isn’t political. It’s about WOTR’s persistently thin coverage of logistics, and the fact that when they do publish on the topic, the articles contain false assumptions easily corrected by input from sealift professionals. There’s that word again: assumptions. Except I hold no resentment toward Ryan. He asked for my help in correcting the problem, and I failed too. There simply aren’t enough US Merchant Mariners in our institutions for anyone to consult with…. And the very few who do are incredibly busy right now. What I hold is a deep desire to fix the underlying gap, which is what led to my involvement in the PME debate. As for battleships: yes, I’d welcome a public debate. DMs are open. Three points I’d make: My primary concern is the case you built for why Trump wants battleships. Ego is an obvious and provable motivation, but it is not the primary one. First, industrial base. Surface combatants are proving extraordinarily valuable, but we build exactly one type: DDGs. Every lever is already being pulled to increase DDG production. Building larger hulls concurrently, at yards not currently optimized for DDGs, expands manufacturing capacity rather than competing with it. This BTW is why the BB doesn’t have all the capabilities you and I desire. Second, logistics. We cannot sustain DDGs in a prolonged fight. A larger hull with greater storage capacity and reduced missile dependence extends on-station time and provides alternative methods for underway replenishment Third, chokepoint control. I did not have input into the current design, and we share many of the same concerns about it, but I was involved in the initial debate. The primary strategic motivation, at least at the outset, was the control of chokepoints. A topic that could not be more timely. Thank you for reaching out. For the anger I hold deep frustration but not with you but the entire system WOTR and Stimson exist in. No anger either because I don’t assume your background includes the explosive danger of presuming personal intent.
English
1
1
9
197
John Ʌ Konrad V
John Ʌ Konrad V@johnkonrad·
For those interested in more @WarOnTheRocks content… let me present a full hour of Zach and team podcast hating on battleships! And when zach says “debate” he means they all debate how much they hate Trump. Seriously it’s impressive. A full hour and not one nice thing to say about big booming guns. WARING: you’ll need several hard on the rocks beverages to consume this TDS infused bullshit.
Zack Cooper@ZackCooper

This week on Net Assessment we debated the Trump administration proposal to build new "battleships" -- we were not impressed... Here's our broadside against the idea: netassessment.libsyn.com/a-broadside-ag…

English
19
58
379
16.1K
Zack Cooper retweetledi
Zack Cooper
Zack Cooper@ZackCooper·
(10/10) Finally, how quickly will the US pull back? A fast withdrawal could lead to panic by allies. But a slow one suggest there’s no end in sight. These are tough choices. We should be debating them openly today. Our future, and Asia’s, demand it. Fin. foreignaffairs.com/united-states/…
English
9
9
70
8.5K
Zack Cooper
Zack Cooper@ZackCooper·
(9/10) Third, as Washington pulls back, probing by Beijing is inevitable, and allies will look to the US for reassurance and clear commitment. Will US leaders decide to clarify their commitments to remaining allies, or attempt to hide behind a veil of ambiguity?
English
1
4
56
8.8K
Zack Cooper
Zack Cooper@ZackCooper·
America’s Pivot to Asia has failed. That’s the argument I make in an essay out today in Foreign Affairs. I know this will be controversial, so let me explain why I think we need to take this seriously and reimagine what comes next. A thread… (1/10) foreignaffairs.com/united-states/…
English
56
239
700
344.8K